Australian energy company Woodside will spend $18bn on a new liquified natural gas (LNG) project in the US that one advocacy group said would add 1.6bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its 40-year life.
Climate advocates said the announcement, made the week before Woodside’s annual general meeting, would put further pressure on the company after a major rebuke from shareholders last year over its emissions plan.
Woodside’s chief executive, Meg O’Neill, said the decision to invest in the Louisiana project was a historic moment and would turn the company into a “global LNG powerhouse”.
The project was expected to cost US$17.5bn (A$27bn), with investment company Stonepeak also investing US$5.7bn (A$8.8bn).
Will van de Pol, chief executive of corporate climate advocacy group Market Forces, said Woodside had committed to a project “that would export harmful gas until the 2070s”.
Market Forces estimated the project would add 1.6bn tonnes of CO2-equivalent over its life – the equivalent of running Australia’s biggest coal-fired power station, Eraring, for 120 years. For context, Australia’s total annual emissions currently are 435m tonnes.
Van de Pol said Woodside investors AustralianSuper and industry super fund Hesta, “can’t wash their hands of these massive new emissions committed on their watch, and they must escalate pressure by voting against directors at Woodside’s AGM next week”.
Alex Hillman, lead analyst at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) and a former climate adviser to Woodside, said: “Investors have voiced increasing displeasure with Woodside’s climate strategy, most recently with the world’s only majority vote against a company’s climate plan at Woodside’s 2024 AGM.”
ACCR sent a formal statement to Woodside to ask shareholders to vote against the re-election and election of directors at next week’s AGM.
Hillman said Woodside was “doubling down on its climate strategy by proceeding with its largest-ever LNG project” and the statement would put increasing pressure on the company to listen to concerns.
A spokesperson for Hesta said that the superannuation fund was “using share voting and engagement to seek more ambitious climate transition strategies from fossil fuel companies”.
“Last year, we voted against Woodside’s Climate Transition Action Plan. We continue to engage with Woodside and are currently considering our voting position in relation to its upcoming AGM.
“Woodside remains on our Watchlist. We regularly review our portfolio and will continue to engage on long-term climate strategy in the best interests of our members.”
AustralianSuper said it had no comment.
The bulk of climate-related emissions from Woodside’s business come from “scope 3” emissions, which mostly occur when the company’s gas is sold and burned by its customers.
These indirect emissions totalled 74.65m tonnes of CO2-equivalent (co2-e) last year, according to company disclosures.
The company’s only plan to address these was to invest US$5bn in “new energy products and lower-carbon services” by 2030, that would indirectly cut 5m tonnes of CO2-e each year.
ACCR said Woodside’s decision to go ahead with the Louisiana project would increase its annual scope 3 emissions by 27%.
A Woodside spokesperson declined to comment on the increase in scope 3 emissions identified by the advocacy groups, but said the company’s climate targets – including a 30% cut to direct emissions by 2030 – remained unchanged.
Woodside said its US$2.35bn investment in an ammonia project was a “material step” to its scope 3 investment goal which, when complete, would save 3.2 megatonnes of CO2-e each year.
